I must say that from the outside I understand that the consensus process is sometimes frustrating when we don't just see immediately why "THEY" don't do what "I" want them to because it makes sense, but...

...since the world is made up of conflicts which arise from highly polarized OPINIONS (emphasis mine), I'm in love with consensus. My observation is that while time-consuming, it's a process by which the concerns of the most polarized opinions can have the respect and space to air their concerns, and then a group can explore the common ground that allows them to meet somewhere along the continuum of their various agreement-points, and arrive at a decision that has a good chance of affording the most extreme "left" or "right"/"conservative" or "liberal"/"edit" or "no edit" opinions an acceptable, middle ground solution that hears available concerns, addresses them, weighs them against the opinions of others, and arrives at a workable conclusion.

Consensus, to me, means more than democracy and majority rule, because the dissenting opinion's concerns can be absorbed into the assenting opinion's concerns, and caressed into an applicably median agreement. Decisions can be made that in many cases encompass the largest amalgam of the widest array of concerns - it's not always perfect, but need I say, neither is democracy or rule by simple administrative command?

So yeah, consensus takes time, and few will ever get their *exact* wish to a T, but with luck, I hope, fewer still are simply stuck with the exact opposite of their wish... and again with luck those present at least feel heard and addressed.

To wit, after much discussion and some strongly-held-opinion-sharing, the ultimate decision was: implement edit, within a period of time of approx. 60 minutes. It will include the automation of a timestamp mark that designates specifically that a post was edited by the owner, each time it is edited.

Now, if you're using the board, let's examine how we can help support this function's use for all, and prevent its abuse.

Here's what I'll do: If I'm going to post that I agree/disagree/want to reference what you said, I'll quote what you said so the context is included. If you happen to be one of those edge cases that changes your post to make my post look stupid/irrelevant/silly, the context will still be captured in my quote.

If I edit after I've posted, I'll endeavor to include a note (along these lines: "Edited for typo - man, I gotta stop posting after four coffees"; "Edited: I meant 'I DON'T live in a giant bucket,' not 'I live in a giant bucket!'"; "Edited because I checked on Google a minute later, and whaddyakno, there is, in fact, a Santa Claus."

That's what I'll do, as a user. Feel free to add/copy/negate, but thanks to educated dialogue such as this, and the group's willingness to participate in consensus, the edit function will be headed our way.

I think it's also worth saying that people at various levels had various opinions and this decision to me seems to operate at the "middle of the road" for every opinion, even the ones quote-unquote "lowest" and "highest" in the so-called "heirarchy".

I'll climb off the soapbox now, but hope that there's been some illustration of how decisions don't happen in a vacuum and there are at least valiant attempts to allow everyone a voice when forming opinions about how to run this schtuff.

first, thank you for the insight into the process, and for reminding us that it takes much less time for us to make up our minds about it than it takes for a group to reach a consensus about it.

second, I'm very glad that edit seems to be on it's way.

Third: with any type of board feature change, I think it's natural to need some sort of ettiquette reminders, and your email did just that.

personally, I think noting a post with ETA (edited to add) or noting the edit in the post itself is just good form. Manners, if you will. Like saying please and thank you. I also am trying to be aware that not all people think please and thank you are necessary.

In all honesty, i think that the chances that edit would get abused are few and far between (or maybe that's my I-give-people-more-credit-than-they're-due-sometimes talking). I'm not saying that it WON'T happen, but I dont' know that it's something that we should all be trying to circumvent right out the door. I fear that such thinking will make us, or some of us, hypersensitive, and may produce undesired attention to only one aspect of the communication around here. I'd rather see it (abuse) acknowledged as a possibility, but approached with a cross-that-bridge-when-we-come-to-it attitude.

I haven't been all that worried about it but aim to just acknowledge the reasons others were concerned.

My thought, personally, when considering such abuses was something along the lines of a Bill Hicksian "Yeah. And. So. What?" Cos I think most folks do have integrity and/or are too busy with having a real life to bother, and for any poor soul that might by chance abuse a useful tool, well, I can always ignore 'em....

This statement quoted below is more descriptive of the scope of our consensus-

actiongrl wrote:I think most folks do have integrity and/or are too busy with having a real life to bother, and for any poor soul that might by chance abuse a useful tool [Edit button], well, I can always ignore 'em....(05Apr07)

But this contrasts subtlety with the views coming out of the meeting with the BMORG Eplaya Technocracy-

actiongrl wrote:To wit, after much discussion and some strongly-held-opinion-sharing, the ultimate decision was: implement edit, within a period of time of approx. 60 minutes. It will include the automation of a timestamp mark that designates specifically that a post was edited by the owner, each time it is edited. (05Apr06)

The BMORG Eplaya Oligarchy still want to put limitations on the Edit button. This isnot yet the best solution. It is worth mentioning that an Edit button with a 60 minute time-limit failstoaddress our individuals' need for retraction. Retraction, in the context of BBSing, is usually a one-on-one affair where, over a period of days or weeks, one user may ask another user to retract a libelous statement in a previous message without involving the Admin or delay, so as to minimize damages.

Retraction is an example of where previous 'printed' content gets changed in a wholesale manner. However, the Retractor will most likely show enough clarity in their retraction so as to preserve their own dignity in an act of grace. Retraction is a conciliatory act that rebuilds good-will.

Meanwhile, any 'nefarious subversion' via the Edit button will be too subtle to notice, or too awkward to care about. 60 minute time-limit on Edit?- That's unreasonable! A Edit time-limit should extend to 30 days perhaps- But at 30 days, why a time-limit at all? Simply auto-appending a time-stamp for each instance that a message was edited issufficient!

"The BMORG Eplaya Oligarchy still want to put limitations on the Edit button. This is not yet the best solution. It is worth mentioning that an Edit button with a 60 minute time-limit fails to address our individuals' need for retraction."

No good deed goes unpunished. Sheesh, the 60 minute edit is better than what we have now and yet the whining persists. I'd prefer full edit too but incremental progress is better than none. I'll bite my tongue on what I really wanted to write here...AG, ETF people or whomever made the decision, thank you.

K-IV
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!

We are worse offnow than we were before. We had an Edit button with no time-limt. Then we experienced a Dark Period on Eplaya while the Edit button was removed. And now we're contemplating the return of the Edit button but with a 60 minute time-limit: This will be a net-loss.

I'll use these words- 'InMyOpinion' just this once to suit your fancy, Actiongrl, but then never again- InMyOpinion, I could probably make my argumenta little bit moreaffordable--

Captain Fuckwit, would you please sit down and shut up for a bit? There's a chance you'll get your coveted full edit functionality back. It's going to take time though. I don't know if you were on here during the last edit debacle...hell I was part of the mess back then but you are going up against the powers that be with a mindset that was forged through the University of Hands On Experience. I don't recall you being on the board at that time...and not having that understanding it's easy to sit back and take sniper shots at the eplaya admins over this decision. But it's the wrong thing to do.

Now I have no problem with calling any last one of the ETF people or any critic on here out if I feel something's not right, if something smacks of censorship, etc. I'll fire the cannons with the best of 'em. But in this case having went through the last edit debacle and having seen this debated to the point of making it into a sainthood for dead horse conversations on this board and other BM boards...I'm going to repeat the call. Step back, and give the task force / powers that be and others a chance to work through this. Your points have been noted, you won't be getting full edit right now. It's not going to happen and that should be perfectly clear. So you work with what you have and nicely build your arguments, build coalitions and work on influencing things through those channels, etc and in time you should have an opportunity to get full edit back on here.

I apologize for being rude yet I'm hoping you'll see there's a better way to go about what you want to do. Brute force arguments going up against those who were here during the sock wars will get you nowhere.

K-IV

~~~~

Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!

you know - i just realized that last post was inappropriate in this thread. i figger no one's read it yet, so just pretend i've edited it to something innocuous and non-inflammatry, like "yay for getting something that allows me to adjust my posts to improve the overall demeanor of the board!"

The consensus today is that people demand to watch television in color instead of black and white. It doesn't require a conference call to deduce that this is the consensus. While BBS's are not as ubiquitous as television sets, it's a fair measure of human nature that Users want an Edit button.

actiongrl wrote:To wit, after much discussion and some strongly-held-opinion-sharing, the ultimate decision was: implement edit, within a period of time of approx. 60 minutes. It will include the automation of a timestamp mark that designates specifically that a post was edited by the owner, each time it is edited. (05Apr06)

Allbeit, via unofficial channels, the word on Eplaya (one week ago) is that a compromise was reached- a 60 minute-limit Edit button. Unfortunately for the Tech Team, a time-limited Edit button translates to spending precious labor at finding, installing and testing a module that (usually) requires innately tricky calendar-math. An unlimited-Edit button, on the other hand, is the pre-installed toggle of Edit OFF or ON- It's already there, no programming required!

Spanky, I don't know how strongly you are held within the BMORG to follow the recommendation for installing the one hour-limited Edit button. But if you cannot facillitate a limited-Edit before the April Work Weekend, then most likely, the Edit button isn't going to happenuntil June! If this is the (non) result, then users are all going to be left to wonder- "How many BMORG Technocrats does it take to screw in a lightbulb?"

As a member of the ESTF (Eplaya Sorcerers' Task Force), I've consulted with my cabal and we're telling you now that if you don't get the Edit button fixed before the 22nd of April, we are going to turn you into a frog! But we're adding the stipulation that the spell won't activate immediately but rather sometime within the next six months when someone you care about kisses you! You'll have to tell your sweety that you've got the flu. We need our Edit button! Get busy!

Crap, something went horribly wrong! I went to Spanky's office and found only a frog. Tried kissin' it, but the darn thing just croaked at me blankly and reached for a Boont. (Having no thumbs, he dropped it, of course. Poor little green dear.) CF, are you sure you set that spell for the right date?

Intended for the Edit Discussion thread.It is granted, unilateral decisions have to made by a BMORG technocrat whenever he or she is 'knee-deep' in developing a particular 'progress'. There's simply not enough availability or expediency to gather a consensus at every fork of a decision making processes when trying to fulfill a particularmodule of effort.
However, there does exist in the weeks or days or even minutesfollowing such a unilateral decision, the opportunity to examine if whether or not that decision is congruent with the group consensus. Congruent? No bother. But on the instances where the technocracy makes a unilateraldecision that is not congruent with the consensus, then it may be an indication of a poor decision, even if the consensus can never be accurately 'polled': In the name of progress, such a decision can be reversed and a change of path can be afforded.

The consensus that has been brought up in the last few weeks is that we want an Edit button, reassured by agreement that an Edit button would be re-instated, albeit an Edit button with a time-limit, and made doubly self-evident by the fact that we are now testing an Edit button module. To make the PolicyDiscussion forum ineligible for the Edit button, but all the while making the Edit button available to the Drunk thread, doesn't make a whole lot of sense! And it certainly is not congruent with consensus. The unilateralproclamation that the Policy Discussion forum simply will not host an Edit button is, at face value, an act of laziness against fulfilling the mandate of the consensus.

The 'Timed Edit Mod Feedback' thread seems more of a place to write test-posts. The 'Edit Discussion' thread is the established thread for discussion of the Edit button. We should discuss this here- What is the rationale behind no-Edit button within Policy Discussion? Why should our ability to restore dropped words and fix typos be denied, especially in an area where writing requires a lot more nuance in carrying across complex ideas when examining board policy? Let's discuss this.